For me to get the breadth of content as netflix us I would have to buy Sky, Lightbox and Quickflicks - which is a huge price increase over netflix US, plus the actual value add they offer is quite low compared to Netflix. And forcibily segmenting the market along geographic lines using artificial boundaries like that is terrible and unethical - and its obvious plenty of people agree with me given the incredibly high rates of piracy or use of unblocking methods that are used. That is one reason why the grey market around unblocking content like this is so huge, and one reason why a huge number of people think piracy is OK.

I'm not too certain of the contractual terms netflix has with the content providers are but I would be surprized if it is just a static dollar amount - so it may not be at zero incremental cost. And regardless - the only way we are going to be able to get a fair service is if we use these methods to make the current model unappealing for content providers by making a fairer model more profitable.

Lets think of this in terms of physical goods, a dvd retailer in Auckland wouldn't be allowed to charge $20 for a cd to an aucklander that walks through the door and then ask for $25 for that same cd to a Hamiltonian queued behind the aucklander - if its not illegal, it would certainly be unethical. The internet has no physical location, so your analogy of two seperate supermarkets is a swing and a miss.

Exactly what he said. If the rights licensing model in use doesn't support selling cross-boundary, and can't extract revenue based on the number of viewers, then it's time to change the model.

How stupid would it be if Pak'n'Save had exclusive rights to sell Heinz, while Countdown had exclusive rights to sell Watties, and grey-importing Heinz sauce was deemed (by some) to be illegal?

The current model is nonsense and we as consumers need to say "No, you're not shafting me just because I happen to live in NZ"

I'm happy to pay UK/US Netflix subs (I currently pay UK rates) and I'm even happy to pay NZ GST. But I'm not going to pay for a 3rd rate NZ service just because they bought "exclusive" rights to some material.

Supermarkets do have exclusive lines - and some on the basis that the price that the supermarket is willing to pay is unacceptable to the supplier. If, using your example, Countdown had exclusive rights to Watties based on the fact that Heinz refused to supply Countdown would Heinz be within its rights to prevent Countdown from importing and selling Heinz products. No. Because its a PHYSICAL GOOD and parallel importing of physical goods is legislated. Intellectual property rights, ie non-physical goods, have not been legally tested to affirm that they may be parallel imported. For some strange reason Netflix is not saying "test me, go on, test me in a court of law". Instead it is enforcing its terms and conditions - out of some unknown moral or ethical or ?legal? reason. Go figure.

If those automobiles arent allowed on the roads should the police stop them or turn a blind eye?

For the record I'm going to modify my vehicle and ignore the idea of getting a WOF for it - if I dont get caught then its okay.

Except that there's nothing wrong with the vehicle, and it is perfectly legal to drive on the road. It's only the horse drawn cart makers that care, because I don't buy horse drawn carts anymore. And I still won't, especially won't, if they manage to convince the government that cars should be illegal.

I hesitate to make the comparison, because it's not really in the same league. But once, it used to be illegal to be gay. And it used to be illegal for women or non-white people to vote. But eventually, a lot of ordinary people stood up and said that that was bull*** and the law was wrong. Are you trying to tell me that it's OK for me to say that laws against sex or race discrimination are wrong, but mere geo-blocking is utterly sacred just because someone spent some money on it?

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

If those automobiles arent allowed on the roads should the police stop them or turn a blind eye?

For the record I'm going to modify my vehicle and ignore the idea of getting a WOF for it - if I dont get caught then its okay.

Except that there's nothing wrong with the vehicle, and it is perfectly legal to drive on the road. It's only the horse drawn cart makers that care, because I don't buy horse drawn carts anymore. And I still won't, especially won't, if they manage to convince the government that cars should be illegal.

I hesitate to make the comparison, because it's not really in the same league. But once, it used to be illegal to be gay. And it used to be illegal for women or non-white people to vote. But eventually, a lot of ordinary people stood up and said that that was bull*** and the law was wrong. Are you trying to tell me that it's OK for me to say that laws against sex or race discrimination are wrong, but mere geo-blocking is utterly sacred just because someone spent some money on it?

Actually its legal to drive the car in the US. Whether its legal to drive the car in NZ has yet to be determined. But people are being stopped from driving - and they continue to try to drive some with more success than others. But for some reason the guy thats selling you the car is trying to stop you from driving it.

Equating [EDIT: sp] intellectual property theft with discrimination is wrong. And has resulted in locking of topics in the past. It would be best to stick to contract law discussions not humans rights violations. They are very very very different.

1. Horse drawn cart makers who don't want to build automobiles and insist nobody else should be allowed to either; and2. Car salesmen who actively hurt their automobile customers for having the audacity to insist they don't want a horse drawn cart

I'm perfectly willing to pay. On the same terms as my car: once, from whomever and wherever I choose.

If those automobiles arent allowed on the roads should the police stop them or turn a blind eye?

For the record I'm going to modify my vehicle and ignore the idea of getting a WOF for it - if I dont get caught then its okay.

Hmmm - rights holders are like the mob forcing us to buy their services instead of cheaper alternatives that others can get legally elsewhere. Their rationale - "You will buy it through us, even though we add no value, and charge you more than people who get more options and a better service overseas", and the lawyers and politicians are the rights holders heavies with baseball bats and molotov cocktails. What is being done is bad for the economy, bad for the NZ public and ethically wrong - and when such an ethically corrupt practice is standard, grey and black markets flourish as is happening now.

The rights holders for the US are selling product to you at zero incremental cost. The rights holders that have paid for NZ rights are getting zero revenue. Would be fine if the US rights holders approached and acquired the local rights too - but why bother when they can sell to you for maximum profit. That sounds like profiteering, doesnt it? And when that rights holder deems that it will enforce its geographical restriction to comply with the rights it has acquired then we all complain. Market segmentation is not ethically wrong, its just market segmentation. Lightbox doesnt charge you significantly more for its products and yet there are people that will watch Parks & Recreation via Netflix US rather than pay Lightbox for the right to watch it locally.

Do you deem that having different pricing structures between stores for a supermarket chain is ethically wrong? Or is that just a function of market segmentation?

For me to get the breadth of content as netflix us I would have to buy Sky, Lightbox and Quickflicks - which is a huge price increase over netflix US, plus the actual value add they offer is quite low compared to Netflix. And forcibily segmenting the market along geographic lines using artificial boundaries like that is terrible and unethical - and its obvious plenty of people agree with me given the incredibly high rates of piracy or use of unblocking methods that are used. That is one reason why the grey market around unblocking content like this is so huge, and one reason why a huge number of people think piracy is OK.

I'm not too certain of the contractual terms netflix has with the content providers are but I would be surprized if it is just a static dollar amount - so it may not be at zero incremental cost. And regardless - the only way we are going to be able to get a fair service is if we use these methods to make the current model unappealing for content providers by making a fairer model more profitable.

Lets think of this in terms of physical goods, a dvd retailer in Auckland wouldn't be allowed to charge $20 for a cd to an aucklander that walks through the door and then ask for $25 for that same cd to a Hamiltonian queued behind the aucklander - if its not illegal, it would certainly be unethical. The internet has no physical location, so your analogy of two seperate supermarkets is a swing and a miss.

Netflix have negotiated a static cost by series. They do not and will not disclose, even to the production company that they paid the rights for, the number of streams of that content. Hence every person that watches a US copyrighted product in another jurisdiction is giving Netflix incremental revenue at no incremental cost. It is unpalatable for the content providers as it devalues the product in other markets - and as such they are attempting to enforce their rights by making Netflix enforce its terms and conditions. If Netflix want to offer additional products in NZ it should pay for those rights. To supply them at zero cost without right to sell them is in my mind unethical. It hasnt paid for the right to supply - if it wants to offer those rights either globally or locally by acquiring them it can. And yet it hasnt.

A DVD retailer may have two stores - one in Auckland, one in Hamilton. They may charge different prices in those two stores based on customers ability to pay, cost structure or any other reason it seeks. Thats not unethical, thats business. Supermarkets have been doing it for years - and still do with different pricing structures in different stores. Telecom used to "pocket price" services depending on whether TelstraClear had cable down a particular street. If you lived one street over and didnt have access to cable services you would pay more for the same product. And the ComCom deemed this an acceptable market behaviour. To say that this time its different because of the internet fails to appreciate that someone's intellectual property has real value purely because of a delivery system.

But that Auckland store would not be able to exclude the hamilton client when they walk in that auckland store to buy that DVD which is analogous to what rights holders are trying to do. The internet has no boundaries and to try and enforce it is unethical and stupid. Supermarkets are not allowed to stop people from walking into their shop based on the address they live in.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

And what happens when "Contentac" decides not to buy the content based on the price demanded by the rights holder?

With the current restrictions you would rather pay a US corporate called Netflix than you would pay Lightbox (a NZ company), Sky (a NZ company), Quickflix (an Australian company) or TVNZ (a state owned NZ company). Did I understand that? The cost for Netflix to deliver content to NZ that it hasnt paid for is near zero (probably 15 cents in the dollar delivery et al) vs 65 cents in the dollar to a US client (being 50 cents for the content, 15 cents delivery et al). The ability for the NZ company to compete on that model is equal to the cost for Netflix - near zero.

Let Netflix buy the global rights or aggregate the local rights. Its called the free market.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

And what happens when "Contentac" decides not to buy the content based on the price demanded by the rights holder?

With the current restrictions you would rather pay a US corporate called Netflix than you would pay Lightbox (a NZ company), Sky (a NZ company), Quickflix (an Australian company) or TVNZ (a state owned NZ company). Did I understand that? The cost for Netflix to deliver content to NZ that it hasnt paid for is near zero (probably 15 cents in the dollar delivery et al) vs 65 cents in the dollar to a US client (being 50 cents for the content, 15 cents delivery et al). The ability for the NZ company to compete on that model is equal to the cost for Netflix - near zero.

Let Netflix buy the global rights or aggregate the local rights. Its called the free market.

So you believe its ok for Supermarkets to charge extra for people that live in a different town when those people use the same physical store as others they charge less too? Because that is what the current model does, and its not going to change unless people take steps to avoid this terrible practice. Lightbox and NZ are probably paying more for content than what USA consumers pay, but it doesn't matter as they are content to charge more again and clip the ticket. So I would rather pay netflix US 15 cents, than pay Lightbox 30 cents (who then pay US studios 20 cents of that). There is no room for Local content distributors in NZ - they offer absolutely no value (maybe with the exception of sports), as I suggested earlier, they are like the mafia demanding protection money, or compulsory unions demanding union fees.

Please, for the love of $deity do not use Hola. You rather have your connection compromised than let it go?

I did experiment with it the other day and made a Netflix proxy.

It was on it's own IP range with firewall rules between it and my network running on a sandboxed VM and traffic monitors running to ensure it wasn't going to do anything stupid. Once you've got Hola installed consider that machine compromised and never do banking or anything personal on it. It is incredibly bad.

There are other solutions out there and it costs bugger all to get a solution that'll work. So please, don't ever use Hola.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

And what happens when "Contentac" decides not to buy the content based on the price demanded by the rights holder?

With the current restrictions you would rather pay a US corporate called Netflix than you would pay Lightbox (a NZ company), Sky (a NZ company), Quickflix (an Australian company) or TVNZ (a state owned NZ company). Did I understand that? The cost for Netflix to deliver content to NZ that it hasnt paid for is near zero (probably 15 cents in the dollar delivery et al) vs 65 cents in the dollar to a US client (being 50 cents for the content, 15 cents delivery et al). The ability for the NZ company to compete on that model is equal to the cost for Netflix - near zero.

Let Netflix buy the global rights or aggregate the local rights. Its called the free market.

So you believe its ok for Supermarkets to charge extra for people that live in a different town when those people use the same physical store as others they charge less too? Because that is what the current model does, and its not going to change unless people take steps to avoid this terrible practice. Lightbox and NZ are probably paying more for content than what USA consumers pay, but it doesn't matter as they are content to charge more again and clip the ticket. So I would rather pay netflix US 15 cents, than pay Lightbox 30 cents (who then pay US studios 20 cents of that). There is no room for Local content distributors in NZ - they offer absolutely no value (maybe with the exception of sports), as I suggested earlier, they are like the mafia demanding protection money, or compulsory unions demanding union fees.

So you might as well torrent then. The content producer has been paid regardless of whether you watch something or not. Instead of transferring your wealth to Netflix you might as well retain the consumer surplus and watch for free.

And what would you say of the local providers who have content that Netflix doesnt offer? Mr Robot? Mozart in the Jungle? Just two examples of overseas content that Netflix doesnt offer.

And for the record you're paying Lightbox and Netflix about the same price - but the cost structure you're advocating suggests that Lightbox cant compete and earn a return. Lightbox is paying market rate for product (both exclusive and non exclusive) that it thinks consumers want to see. Thats not the equivalent of demanding protection money - thats product differentiation in a free market. What you dont want is to pay multiple providers to watch the breadth of content you desire. Force out the local guy and you'll be buying your content from a suite of Netflix style providers (call them "studios") and the sum of the content suite will be higher than you're currently paying.

Bear in mind that other than the Netflix Originals (which are exclusive acquired rights from content producers - who is "demanding protection money" now?), Netflix offers no more or less value to the process than a Lightbox or a Quickflix - its just another content aggregator.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

And what happens when "Contentac" decides not to buy the content based on the price demanded by the rights holder?

With the current restrictions you would rather pay a US corporate called Netflix than you would pay Lightbox (a NZ company), Sky (a NZ company), Quickflix (an Australian company) or TVNZ (a state owned NZ company). Did I understand that? The cost for Netflix to deliver content to NZ that it hasnt paid for is near zero (probably 15 cents in the dollar delivery et al) vs 65 cents in the dollar to a US client (being 50 cents for the content, 15 cents delivery et al). The ability for the NZ company to compete on that model is equal to the cost for Netflix - near zero.

Let Netflix buy the global rights or aggregate the local rights. Its called the free market.

So you believe its ok for Supermarkets to charge extra for people that live in a different town when those people use the same physical store as others they charge less too? Because that is what the current model does, and its not going to change unless people take steps to avoid this terrible practice. Lightbox and NZ are probably paying more for content than what USA consumers pay, but it doesn't matter as they are content to charge more again and clip the ticket. So I would rather pay netflix US 15 cents, than pay Lightbox 30 cents (who then pay US studios 20 cents of that). There is no room for Local content distributors in NZ - they offer absolutely no value (maybe with the exception of sports), as I suggested earlier, they are like the mafia demanding protection money, or compulsory unions demanding union fees.

So you might as well torrent then. The content producer has been paid regardless of whether you watch something or not. Instead of transferring your wealth to Netflix you might as well retain the consumer surplus and watch for free.

And what would you say of the local providers who have content that Netflix doesnt offer? Mr Robot? Mozart in the Jungle? Just two examples of overseas content that Netflix doesnt offer.

And for the record you're paying Lightbox and Netflix about the same price - but the cost structure you're advocating suggests that Lightbox cant compete and earn a return. Lightbox is paying market rate for product (both exclusive and non exclusive) that it thinks consumers want to see. Thats not the equivalent of demanding protection money - thats product differentiation in a free market. What you dont want is to pay multiple providers to watch the breadth of content you desire. Force out the local guy and you'll be buying your content from a suite of Netflix style providers (call them "studios") and the sum of the content suite will be higher than you're currently paying.

Bear in mind that other than the Netflix Originals (which are exclusive acquired rights from content producers - who is "demanding protection money" now?), Netflix offers no more or less value to the process than a Lightbox or a Quickflix - its just another content aggregator.

Netflix offers such a large catalog of content that I don't mind forgoing the odd show - the convenience of being able to watch just about anything I want in high definition whenever I want is really good value and actually better than piracy. And if there is something else I really want then I can sign up to a service that provides that eg, Hulu. I pay about 16 usd a month for up to four simultaneous streams - lightbox offers a tiny amount of content relative to netflix US.

I am paying netflix closer to the market rate for the product, I'm just paying the USD market rate. I cannot pay a market rate for lightbox, the only option is an extortionate amount forced upon us by artificial borders (something like one tenth the content so it should be one tenth the price). What you are proposing isn't a free and global market, it is an archaic model based around regionalising digital content with no reproduction costs, a free market does not have artificial borders. The current business model is closer to the closed economy of the late seventies where goods were stopped at the border with the government clipping the ticket with large import duties and local manufacturers making money from providing inferior products.

As I said - it wouldn't be acceptable for a supermarket to charge extra to out of towners, and its not acceptable for content providers to do the same.

And are you kidding me - netflix offers a huge deal of value compared to local providers - about ten times the value (ten times the content) at a very similar price, plus all the convenience of being able to watch tv on any device (which lightbox still can't eg, xbox). The model your defending is just like paying for that "service" the mob heavies offer to "protect" yourself - you have no choice if you want to live in that area. The future is in global business, not in protectionism for local business - the consumer will win this.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

And what happens when "Contentac" decides not to buy the content based on the price demanded by the rights holder?

With the current restrictions you would rather pay a US corporate called Netflix than you would pay Lightbox (a NZ company), Sky (a NZ company), Quickflix (an Australian company) or TVNZ (a state owned NZ company). Did I understand that? The cost for Netflix to deliver content to NZ that it hasnt paid for is near zero (probably 15 cents in the dollar delivery et al) vs 65 cents in the dollar to a US client (being 50 cents for the content, 15 cents delivery et al). The ability for the NZ company to compete on that model is equal to the cost for Netflix - near zero.

Let Netflix buy the global rights or aggregate the local rights. Its called the free market.

So you believe its ok for Supermarkets to charge extra for people that live in a different town when those people use the same physical store as others they charge less too? Because that is what the current model does, and its not going to change unless people take steps to avoid this terrible practice. Lightbox and NZ are probably paying more for content than what USA consumers pay, but it doesn't matter as they are content to charge more again and clip the ticket. So I would rather pay netflix US 15 cents, than pay Lightbox 30 cents (who then pay US studios 20 cents of that). There is no room for Local content distributors in NZ - they offer absolutely no value (maybe with the exception of sports), as I suggested earlier, they are like the mafia demanding protection money, or compulsory unions demanding union fees.

So you might as well torrent then. The content producer has been paid regardless of whether you watch something or not. Instead of transferring your wealth to Netflix you might as well retain the consumer surplus and watch for free.

And what would you say of the local providers who have content that Netflix doesnt offer? Mr Robot? Mozart in the Jungle? Just two examples of overseas content that Netflix doesnt offer.

And for the record you're paying Lightbox and Netflix about the same price - but the cost structure you're advocating suggests that Lightbox cant compete and earn a return. Lightbox is paying market rate for product (both exclusive and non exclusive) that it thinks consumers want to see. Thats not the equivalent of demanding protection money - thats product differentiation in a free market. What you dont want is to pay multiple providers to watch the breadth of content you desire. Force out the local guy and you'll be buying your content from a suite of Netflix style providers (call them "studios") and the sum of the content suite will be higher than you're currently paying.

Bear in mind that other than the Netflix Originals (which are exclusive acquired rights from content producers - who is "demanding protection money" now?), Netflix offers no more or less value to the process than a Lightbox or a Quickflix - its just another content aggregator.

Netflix offers such a large catalog of content that I don't mind forgoing the odd show - the convenience of being able to watch just about anything I want in high definition whenever I want is really good value and actually better than piracy. And if there is something else I really want then I can sign up to a service that provides that eg, Hulu. I pay about 16 usd a month for up to four simultaneous streams - lightbox offers a tiny amount of content relative to netflix US.

I am paying netflix closer to the market rate for the product, I'm just paying the USD market rate. I cannot pay a market rate for lightbox, the only option is an extortionate amount forced upon us by artificial borders (something like one tenth the content so it should be one tenth the price). What you are proposing isn't a free and global market, it is an archaic model based around regionalising digital content with no reproduction costs, a free market does not have artificial borders. The current business model is closer to the closed economy of the late seventies where goods were stopped at the border with the government clipping the ticket with large import duties and local manufacturers making money from providing inferior products.

As I said - it wouldn't be acceptable for a supermarket to charge extra to out of towners, and its not acceptable for content providers to do the same.

And are you kidding me - netflix offers a huge deal of value compared to local providers - about ten times the value (ten times the content) at a very similar price, plus all the convenience of being able to watch tv on any device (which lightbox still can't eg, xbox). The model your defending is just like paying for that "service" the mob heavies offer to "protect" yourself - you have no choice if you want to live in that area. The future is in global business, not in protectionism for local business - the consumer will win this.

Your future has you buying content from Sony, Universal, ABC-Disney, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, and Paramount individually on a global basis. Then you can buy smaller studio offerings either directly or in aggregation. If I'm a Sony and I see that something like House of Cards is successful then I dont see the point of selling it to Netlfix to distribute - it adds no value. I can distribute direct to consumer and maximise my profit.

Be careful what you wish for - your current model of buying from the US local provider cant last.

Perhaps we need a Pharmac model for content if the established content producers and rights holders are not going to budge on the abhorrent practice of artificial geographic restrictions - its certainly better than what Rights holders are trying to enforce at the moment. It would probably be a boost to the economy as consumers will have more cash in their hand to spend on other things vs paying alot more money that ends up in the hands of overseas producers. The fact that we are paying more for less than what people in the USA are, just because a few people believe that the internet needs borders, even though the cost to deliver to NZ is the same as it is to the US clients is absurd.

National passed a law in 1994 allowing parallel importing. I think the idea was to cut costs for businesses who constantly found themselves being charged more by local distributors when they could just as easily buy the thing themselves elsewhere and import it. IT opened the way for businesses to perform this function on behalf of others. It made a lot of products both both cheaper and available.

But in 2003, Labour passed an amendment banning the import of films and video for resale (private import is ok) for 9 months after release. A Hollywood law, basically.

In 2008 that ban was extended. In 2013 it was extended again, but the period reduced to 5 months....until October 31st, 2016. This year. I'm thinking we will soon see it extended again. The TPP may kick in and make it forever. Protecting monopolies is a big part of the TPP.